The Green Taliban
My sweetie asked me why, if global warming is so preposterous, no one but me seems to think so. Of course there at millions of us out there who a skeptical about the the global warming scam or about the proposed cures, but our voices are muffled by the media/political all green all the time noise machine. Why, well John Brignell has what I think will rank as a seminal analysis of the mass cult status of the global warmers.
t is a curious repetition of history that those who advance the hypothesis that the sun is the controlling element in changes of climate are vilified, just as Galileo was, for supporting the Copernican heliocentric description of the solar system. Yet the sun is clearly the driver for climate – if it stopped shining, the earth’s temperature would drop to near absolute zero. In the establishment dogma the sun is barely mentioned, while the puny efforts of mankind are gratuitously magnified out of proportion. In a scientific approach to climate, a full understanding of the behaviour of that solitary driver would be the first prerequisite, but this is waived in the interests of piety; so leading solar researchers have been deprived of funding.Get a cup of coffee and go read the whole thing. It is sad but I fear, accurate.One of the most exploited ways of angling the news is by “ratchet reporting”. News of unusual warm weather, for example, is given copious coverage, while cold weather is studiously ignored. Thus the spring of 2007 was disastrously cold in parts of North America, with ice-bound ships and snowed-off baseball, but this was kept secret from the British, whose wonderful summery April was presented as though it were bad news (and that in the land of rheumatism and bronchitis!). The fact that Britain had no spring at all in 2006 was conveniently forgotten, except as a basis of comparison to establish that 2007 was substantially warmer.
That the media know that they are peddling untruths is demonstrated by these tricks they get up to. If they were confident of the truth of their case there would be no need to fake the coverage. They have been frequently caught out faking their numbers and graphs, but only a few internet surfers know about it. If you think you have a good case, you can afford to present both sides, but they don’t. The great majority of the population have no idea that there is an alternative view. That is not science, it is religion. john brignell via sda
The worst thing about the cult is that by diverting attention and resources away from science based, economically realistic programs, it is actually killing lives in being for the sake of bad science’s predictions about the conditions of lives in future. If those predictions turn out to be as wrong as it looks like they are going to be the people killed now will be just as dead.
The great majority of the population have no idea that there is an alternative view. That is not science, it is religion.
No way you’re going to teach “intelligent design” in our schools! Whoops, sorry, wrong topic. Maybe we could have an alternate school system in which ID, global non-warming, the Flat 6000-Year Old Earth theory, phlogiston and Aryan supremacy could be taught unencumbered by the dogmatists on the Left standing in the path of True Science.
Dawg, I realize that you were using “dogmatists” ironically; but when people wander about announce “The science is settled” (as if this is possible) and that there is a legitimate activity known as “post-normal” science which efeectively throws well, fact, under the bus in order to advocate larger “truths”, dogmatists pretty much nails it.
I mean poor Algore cannot even bring himself to admit that his powerpoint presentation has been directly and powerfully contradicted by the IPCC. Because it doesn’t fit the faith.
There is a scientific fact of the matter with respect to climate change and, with luck, we will have observations (rather than rather inaccurate computer models) which will determine it. And, prehaps, once we have adjusted these observations to account for solar variability, soot, clouds and a couple of dozen other variables which have either been ignored or discounted, we may be able to come to a scientific hypothesis as to the contribution of manmade CO2 to the picture. At the moment we have no serious way of estimating this impact.
And then, if we work really hard, we may be able to do the cost/benefit analysis necessary to determine if abatement or adaptation make the most sense assuming that there is anything to abate or adapt to.
Science is never “settled”. It does not proceed by consensus. And to base expensive and intrusive public policy on the current levels of certainty (90% confidence is barely good enough for sociology, would you ever drive over a bridge whose engineers we 90% certain it would take the weight of your car?)is either madness or an act of Faith.
Science is never “settled”. It does not proceed by consensus.
Yes, to the first one, as an article of faith. But, pace the fundamentalists, evolution is “settled,” and so is relativity, and, for that matter, heliocentrism.
That doesn’t mean that the paradigm can’t collapse—we’re both familar enough with Kuhn. But the word “settled,” short of its emotive connotations, is a relative term meaning, “unless something REAL big comes along, we’ll proceed as if this is the case.”
Nothing big has come along—only conservative knee-jerk reactions, motivated at least in part by “counter-studies” funded by the petroleum industry, with little or no scientific value.
Dawg, if the “science” of global warming and man’s contribution was as settled as evolution I would be delighted to panic along with the Left. (I note that heliocentrism is pure observational fact. It would be pleasing if the warmers could come up with a few observational facts rather than relying on simulations run on limited data sets with fairly arbitrary weightings. (Such models are all very well in their place; but when they have a tendency to miss thing like clouds or the climate of the Middle Ages, one cannot help but hanker for observation.)
However, the term “settled” in the global warming debate – along with lamer attempt to discredit skeptics with the petroleum funding slur – is a rhetorical device. It is designed to end debate. And it ends the debate long before reasonable people can be confident that the science is correct, through, unspun (or un-post-normal), observationally confirmed and, perhaps most importantly, significant.
The Left and the Greenies want us to embark on a vast expensive and intrusive set of programs to attack CO2 emissions. Does this make scientific sense? Does it make economic sense? As the IPCC dials back the disaster scenarios as observations are brought into its models it is increasingly apparent that the Gorian catastrophe model which is being used to sell the anti-CO2 message is a reckless exaggeration. And it equally apparent that the science remains shakey and patchy on much of the linkage between manmade emissions of CO2 and actual global warming.
I don’t expect anything “big” to come along; rather I expect small improvements in the modeling and large improvements in both theory and observation to largely undermine the estimates which have been passed off as science and which have been fueling the GW hysteria. At the moment the Gorians, Suzukites, Kyotoists and, unfortunately much of the Left, have been inducing panic by quoting ten year old worst case predictions from a science which is just now beginning to develop and test its own theoretical assumptions.
And the sad truth is that most of these people know better which is precisely why they want to shut down debate before the uncertainty and mistakes which undermine much of what they are claiming is exposed.
“Nothing big has come along–only conservative knee-jerk reactions, motivated at least in part by “counter-studies” funded by the petroleum industry, with little or no scientific value.”
This isn’t actually true, Dawg, but let’s pretend for a second that it is. You give the unsettling impression that you are willing to dismiss an argument out of hand based on the interests of the person delivering it. Which is silly. Global Warming, after all, has become a billion dollar industry. The livelihoods of many many people depend on the existence of man-made climate change. These don’t qualify as interests too?
No. The arguments for and against the theory of man-made climate change should be THEMSELVES the focus of our scrutiny. And the arguments against are, I’m afraid, compelling. Very compelling. At the very least, anyway, good grounds for sober second thought.
Jay’s point, I think, (and it’s an eminently reasonable one too) is that the Greens are pushing the agenda that science in this case is best served by closeting the impulse to doubt. I mean! Alarm bells ring! Galileo spins in his grave! Your mention of Kuhn was very apt, of course, but it begs the question. The problem that so-called “deniers” have with the man-made climate change theory is not that it is flawed, but that it ISN’T flawed at all; that it has achieved this ‘consensus’ that Al Gore and David Suzuki and such-like are endlessly boasting about … Karl Popper—if I, too, might be allowed to drop a name—points out that without a criteria of falsifiability, a theory simply cannot be considered scientific.
Wow, Jay – do this for me: can you name five things which you believe in that others do not but behind which you can’t find a MSM conspiracy, a political voice muffling? Isn’t it maybe that the arguments against all green are simply not that good or at least not well stated? Beside, what is the down side of conservation, organic and other hippiesque aspects of the movement. As you know, I don’t believe a bit of it but I don’t believe in the opposite either.
You give the unsettling impression that you are willing to dismiss an argument out of hand based on the interests of the person delivering it. Which is silly.
It would be I were to leave it there. But such studies are also in the small minority. Hence it is reasonable to at least remark that the “maverick” studies, if I might term them thus, and their funding sources, possess a fair degree of overlap. Not to mention their political adherents. Non-random, in other words.
Current science on global warming is based upon far more than computer simulations, as Jay well knows. And, so far as I am aware, scientific claims in this area (as opposed to popular ones) are entirely capable of being falsified. They just haven’t been, to date.
Sorry, that’s petrochemical funding sources. And conservative political adherents.
Dawg, the hysteria is fueled by the popular distortions of the science and the endless refrain of “the science is settled”. Of course the science is not settled and the popular position as put forward by the likes of Gore and Suzuki is unravelling in the face of better science: here are a few instances – Sea Level,Kilimanjaro, CO2 before Temperature, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Hockey Stick, Polar Bear populations. Good sceince is replacing junk science but it is not being reported because hysteria sells and reason doesn’t.
Alan, I am not sure what your 5 things question is driving at so rephrase it and I’ll try to give you an answer.
As for the downside of conservation and organic (whatever that actually means) I don’t see much if practiced voluntarily. We used to call much of “conservation”, thrift. The problem arises when actual, large scale, governmental policy is being made on scientifically doubtful premises and resources are being allocated on those same premises.
To take the dumbest example, our rural overlords propose to ban the incandescent lightbulb because it is inefficient. Produces more heat than light don’t ya know. Well, in the Canadian context, where we have this winter thing, that is a feature not a bug. The energy is not wasted as heat, rather it contributes to indoor comfort and reduces the need to burn oil or gas. (Given that a great deal of electricity in Canada is generated from hydro or nukes this is a good thing.)
The biggest downside is that politicians, as the lightbulb example underscores, have rushed to “Green” without a seconds’ consideration of the science or the economics of their positions. And, because they don’t they are unwilling to consider the cost/benefits of their proposed measures.
For example, do we hear much if anything about the question of adaptation versus abatement? We don’t because – despite the fact the IPCC concedes that adaptation is pretty much all we can do – the room for governmental interference in a strategy of adaptation is fairly minimal. And, of course, the idea of adaptation implies that climate change is something we can cope with. This kicks the props out from under the ever newsworthy Mr. Gore and Dr. Suzuki.
Increasingly the science is suggesting that rather than driving off a cliff we are hitting a speed bump; not much news mileage in that.
I mean when you hear yourself say or see yourself write “our voices are muffled by the media/political all [insert cause one does not like here] all the time noise machine” you are likely part of the problem. Same goes for “self-loathing” and the variations on “tin foil hat”. If an argument is not compelling it is likely because it does not compel. These other argumentative distractions…distract. It is not that the media does or does not say this or that against being against global warming. It is that the anti-GW set has bad PR or a bad case to make.
Greenness has some very positive things to claim for itself even if there is no hope it can change global warming. Sadly, it is only a generic “green” the politicals are hugging right now. Could I put a chicken coop in my city yard? No chance. Could I put a lawn on my roof or, more relevant, why don’t the shingles I put up last week also generate electricity. Not really. Not rocket science but not supported or sexy enough to become a party platform for anyone.
I’m agnostic on the science. I’ve taken a course in environmental change, and you can be sure the professor is a Gorite. But even he was honest enough to point out some serious limitations to modern climate science. It is still very theoretical and, along with some serious statistical techniques, has predicitive value, but is far from anything remotely “certain”. Global dimming from tropospheric aerosals, stratospheric temperature gradients, the earth’s axis, the behaviour of the water cycle, photosynthesis, and sunspots are just some of the variables that are not only excluded from most “comprehensive” models, they are hardly understood in the first place. So why so much “consensus” among scientists?
First, the theory of ghg warming is pretty solid. It seems to have a lot of explanatory value, and nobody doubts this effect. The extent of the effect is what is unsure, and as jay keeps pointing out, the predicted effect has been getting increasingly smaller.
But worldview matters just as much. If one takes a more environmentalist perspective, the view adhered to by many scientists, you see human behaviour as inherently destructive and dangerous. Add the fact that carbon dioxide can lead to warming, and one can come to a conclusion right there: we need to have less of a “footprint” on the world (something they were pre-disposed to think anyways). Add to this that these scientists have limited interest in economics or political economy (they see “society” as some whole unit, perfectly capable of being directed by an omniscient government, and unable of adjusting to change on its own).
Call me a cynic, but “fixing” this “problem” first of all might not be the best use of our resources. Second, do you really think all the governments of the world are going to get together and work in concert to find some kind of comprehensive, effective solution even though the majority of their populations have no real understanding of the problem in the first place and are extremely averse to any kind of carbon tax? What don’t we solve world poverty at the same time? Oh ya, we’ve been trying for decades.
I think we should concentrate on improving our standard of living, which contrary to the apocalypse predicters, will continue to rise, warming or no warming. Adjustment won’t be as tough as people think. Sure many people have to move, but not all at the same time. Sea level rise will take decades if not centuries. Gore’s rhetoric about millions of refugees is a tad ridiculous. In rich countries, beachouse homes will slowly start to be sold at a discount, and people will have to move inland. In poor countries, the poor population is already practically refugees, living in temporary shanty-towns as it is.